Dealing with Quitters

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
Does anyone else find it frustrating when opponents in casual games quit when they are losing?  Does it diminish your joy of winning, by denying you the opportunity to play out the match to the end?

I am a little sympathetic to why folks quit (particularly against decks which are slow and suffocating to play against), but I do think it detracts from the enjoyment of the winning player.  Personally, I enjoy seeing a match to the end, and enjoy in particular the final swing to victory.

(Content Removed)   Magic Online however should enhance the experience as much as possible.

Recommendation: I recommend that in the event that a player in a casual room quits, Magic Online AI should take control of the quitter's cards and play as best as it can.  To reduce the complexity in the coding,  the AI does not need to be particularly skillful or refined (it can be a bonehead with very basic rules to follow), but it would make a big difference if it tried to do something. Usually the oppoent quits when they are losing anyway.

For those who play Duels of the Planeswalkers, this AI already happens when a player quits, and I like it because it increases the joy of playing when my human opponent quits.  I find the AI on Duels to be excellent, but this is because the programmers have only a limited amount of cards and decks to work with.  The important point is that we don't need the AI to be impressive - only to give it a go by playing spells it can and keeping the game alive.

This also will have the added benefit of allowing players the feature to choose to "Solitaire" against AI opponents, by selecting a deck for the opponent to play and duelling artificial intelligence without the hassles that sometimes comes with human opponents.

What are your thoughts?

(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Discussion of Illegal Programs is against the Code of Conduct)   
If you like Duels then go play Duels and don't try to make MtgO like Duels. These are two vastly different programs (at least in what they are meant to do).

Coding an AI so a few people might feel better in some cases is not a very good use of resources.

Also do note that the AI in Duels is not good but rather the tougher opponents in it have better stacked decks. If the deck is not stacked then it's like playing againts the lowest capable difficulty which you probably would not like to play againts.

Edit: Just for your information. I do like how Duels have some options and that's why I play that also but it would be a nightmare if some things were forced into Mtgo. AI, combat  animations, excess graphics, music etc. There is absolutely no need for these two programs to overlap. That's why we have the option of playing any or both of them. Duels is good as an introduction/learning experiance, I also like that I can play againts the AI, it's nice to have riddles in it but if I want to play "real" magic then I go and log into Mtgo. Simple as that.
Bonehead AI vs no game is better? I don't agree. I would much rather just accept the win and move on no matter how annoyed I might be at someone quitting. Being able to concede is a fundamental need and so is being able to accept concessions.

I am not against an AI being built for MTGO but I'd much rather it be a good one and set up for solitaire or offline play when I don't feel like interacting with the rest of the magic playing population. In addition I'd like such an AI to be something that is tied in with the revival and update of Shandalar which is probably the finest example of solo magic out there (primitive though the AI was.)

This would also allow for more thorough deck testing without needing to find people with the cards and ideas to play (which might put a crimp in the plan if that isn't a desired thing on WOTC's part.)

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)

Does anyone else find it frustrating when opponents in casual games quit when they are losing?



No, I don't. Why would it frustrate me? There is no point in forcing someone to play out a game they do not enjoy, unless you're into torturing. Similarly, there is nothing dishonourable in conceding, and never mind what some ppl would want you to believe.

Play what you want, concede when you want.

The only thing that frustrates me is ppl who disconnect rather than concede, and that should imho be treated as unsportsmanlike behavior.
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
I've actually quit more casual games since the beta started. Why? it keeps putting me in matches in the just for fun room and I then quit during the second game.
But other than that I don't care if you quit. I prefer it if you say why first or even just gg. But if you're mana screwed or you just can't cope with my deck that's fine by me.

The disconnecters though do need some sort of punishment. I generally quit after about 2 minutes and a "?" but that's still wasted time.

I've bought the cards and made a deck Now how do I win at this?

But other than that I don't care if you quit. I prefer it if you say why first or even just gg.



It's interesting that you ask for someone to give a reason for quitting.  I sometimes used to do that, thinking it would be a nice thing to do, saying somthing like "You're playing blue control and you've passed beyond that threshold with card advantage and have a lock, so gg".

But more often than not I would then get a pm with stuff like "whine much?" or "w/e babycakes". So I just say "gg" when I quit now.
Its a personal thing I guess. I only quit when people get a hard lock out (or soft lock if my deck can't deal with it) or start going off with their infinte combo. I'll ask what the win condition is then say gg.

Although to be honest I see a lot less complaining and quitting then this forum seems to imply. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe my decks are so bad no one feels the need to quit.

I've bought the cards and made a deck Now how do I win at this?

But other than that I don't care if you quit. I prefer it if you say why first or even just gg.



It's interesting that you ask for someone to give a reason for quitting.  I sometimes used to do that, thinking it would be a nice thing to do, saying somthing like "You're playing blue control and you've passed beyond that threshold with card advantage and have a lock, so gg".

But more often than not I would then get a pm with stuff like "whine much?" or "w/e babycakes". So I just say "gg" when I quit now.



Some people do not like implied criticism even when it is spot on. Especially when it is spot on. I also stopped providing reasons unless it is something like: "OMG!! Armageddon! TTYL GL!"

Because I think that would actually be appropriate.

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)

"OMG!! Armageddon! TTYL GL!"



What does TTYL GL stand for? 

"OMG!! Armageddon! TTYL GL!"



What does TTYL GL stand for? 



Talk to you later, good luck. Standard Internetese. :D

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)

LOl Telir, I thought it was going to end with "Get Lost", because you were shocked at the Armageddon! Laughing
LOl Telir, I thought it was going to end with "Get Lost", because you were shocked at the Armageddon! 


Hehe maybe I should have said "OMG The Apocalypse!"

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)

I think some AI work from Wizards would be much appreciated by many users. However, I don't think it could be done in the MTGO context. AI that could handle 14 million different cards (or whatever the current MTG card count is) would be a pretty difficult task.

However, please consider it in the context of a remake/update of the Shandalar experience. I can't believe this wouldn't be a big seller (double neg for the win). Perhaps they could somehow fashion it into another gateway product.

AI, in a limited sense, could perhaps be used in MTGO. Limited to a format perhaps; plus, it could grow with time if you did it for each new set. A real solitaire experience would be great for playtesting and newcomers to MTGO.


Concession is rare for me but I see no problem with it.  I see it as a veteran thing.  Also when my opponent conceeds it tells me I beat them so badly that they had no hope of winning.  In reality it is a timesaver.  It doesn't even bother me anymore when they close out the match as soon as I join.  They are just saving us both time.  If they mulligan to 3 and quit well I probably didn't want to play them anyway right?
"They were civilized they even drank their blood from a cup"→James Silke/Frank Frazzeta "When the Cryptkeeper sticks 'em they tend to stay stuck"→Cryptkeeper "Do not blame the current developers if there is something you don't like about Magic Online. Chances are no one asked the developers for their opinion."→elf "They just look at me like I'm stupid and then I just say something like well you know WOTC does some dumb things sometimes."→wilmheath "Like just about everything I've experienced with MTGO and the Magic WotC website, I'm finding it difficult to..."→0rbit "the more general question is: at what point does an easily fixable interface issue become a defect?"→silentbobus "Imagine, only four years later and I almost have as much functionality as I used to."→Algona "WotC, you make an awesome game, why do you have to suck so bad at letting people have a fun time?"→MTGKaioshin "If you are all about playing as many games as possible as fast as possible and you KNOW you have me beat, then concede and move on"→Johnh2005 "Wow. You're a real pleasure to help. Good luck figuring it out by yourself."→tempesteye "2hg brokest of the broke"→Me, Myself & I "It's you against the shuffler."→jwark "this look like freeware that some kid down the street crafted up"→ProtossX "ask them if the world came to an economic end tomorrow, whether they think little printed pieces of paper could be traded for actual goods or services"→dangerlinto "You still have time before the buggy, non user friendly beta is shoved down your throat"→theminer575 Server status→ http://www.wizards.com/magic/magiconlineserverstatus.asp Love or hate me I was brought to you courtesy of V3!
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
If it's a tournament game, you get a win (and tournament advancement, prizes etc).

If it's just a casual game, then just move onto a new opponent (which you can do literally in seconds). Casual games don't count for anything - prizes, ranking, rating, achievements, reputation, tracking...

Sounds like you want MTGO to be more like a video game. But MTGO is not a video game - it's just a framework for playing Magic the Gathering, and just happens to be implemented on computers. Features like AI aren't really appropriate for MTGO.

Sounds like you want MTGO to be more like a video game. But MTGO is not a video game - it's just a framework for playing Magic the Gathering, and just happens to be implemented on computers. Features like AI aren't really appropriate for MTGO.



Dear Andoru.

Thank you for your thoughts.  However, don't you agree that enjoyment is redued in casual games (which is the reason I play casual games - for fun!) when an opponent quits as soon as the tides are turning against the opponent. 

For example, I cast a Staff of Nin.  I want to experience the joy of using the Staff of Nin by drawing extra cards and dealing 1 damage each turn to his Avacyn's Pilgrims etc.  However he simply quits and deprives me of this enjoyment!  What is the fun in casting a Staff of Nin, and then I immediately see a a message "Dwarven Pony has won the match!"  

You see, my opponent could recover from this situation but simply says quietly to himself "Probably I will lose this match because soon my opponent will overwhem me with card advantage and in about 6-7 turns I will be destroyed, so I will QUIT now!"

This is why I said it is acceptable for the AI to be very simple (a bonehead) if Wizards cannot justify investing much time in the AI (which I do completely understand).  The AI in Duels of the Planeswalkers is excellent, and I am NOT suggesting it needs to be the same  The AI in Magic Online can be very basic (like simple default rules such as "creatures attack each turn if able, all creatures try to block, all spells are attempted to be cast when legal, starting from the most expensive to least expensive etc) My post was focused almost entirely on the situation when an opponent quits (the solitaire is simply an added bonus).

For those who say "Magic Online is not a video game", well I disagree because for many users it is - just see all the players in the casual room.  I play Civilization for casual fun (and I can play human opponents or AI).  I play Magic Online mainly for casual fun (and sometimes for tournaments).

Sounds like you want MTGO to be more like a video game. But MTGO is not a video game - it's just a framework for playing Magic the Gathering, and just happens to be implemented on computers. Features like AI aren't really appropriate for MTGO.



...
You see, my opponent could recover from this situation but simply says quietly to himself "Probably I will lose this match because soon my opponent will overwhem me with card advantage and in about 6-7 turns I will be destroyed, so I will QUIT now!"

This is why I said it is acceptable for the AI to be very simple (a bonehead) if Wizards cannot justify investing much time in the AI (which I do completely understand).  The AI in Duels of the Planeswalkers is excellent, and I am NOT suggesting it needs to be the same  The AI in Magic Online can be very basic (like simple default rules such as "creatures attack each turn if able, all creatures try to block, all spells are attempted to be cast when legal, starting from the most expensive to least expensive etc) My post was focused almost entirely on the situation when an opponent quits (the solitaire is simply an added bonus).

For those who say "Magic Online is not a video game", well I disagree because for many users it is - just see all the players in the casual room.  I play Civilization for casual fun (and I can play human opponents or AI).  I play Magic Online mainly for casual fun (and sometimes for tournaments).



Well, just like you, your opponent was probably playing for fun. And he decided that the game is not fun anymore - for him.

I wouldn't play an AI that is not a challenge to beat. The kind you describe would just roll over to any half-serious deck. Its place is just where they put it - in an introductory product, to gently guide new players in discovering the intricacies of the game.

And MtGO is definitely not a video game. But this is probably just a language thing. A video game, for me, is a game with a small, flashy UI, whose playing involves a lot of manual dexterity, and very little thinking. Things like Tetris, or flipper machines. Can be great fun, but definitely not what MtGO is about. I'd be interested to hear what you meant when you said that Magic can be enjoyed as a video game.

Go draft, young man, go draft!



And MtGO is definitely not a video game. But this is probably just a language thing. A video game, for me, is a game with a small, flashy UI, whose playing involves a lot of manual dexterity, and very little thinking. Things like Tetris, or flipper machines. Can be great fun, but definitely not what MtGO is about. I'd be interested to hear what you meant when you said that Magic can be enjoyed as a video game.



I think this is is a language thing only.  What I mean when I say that Magic can be enjoyed as a video game is that it is an online experience which is not simply trying to be a functional way of playing regular paper magic online.  It is trying to provide an experience which maximizes enjoyment of its end users (provided that it doesn't conflict in any way with paper Magic ie. it is 100% genuine Magic the Gathering), and gives people as many options as are reasonably possible.  Automatic shuffling is a simple but good example.

Magic online is in a unique position to do what paper magic can never do - artificial intelligence!  In particular to keep games alive to allow the dominating player to see a match to the end! 

It is not fun for me to cast a Staff of Nin and have my opponent simply quit.  How will I enjoy using the Staff of Nin if the game suddenly ends?  If my opponent quits, then he has the right to do that, however I should also have the right to choose the option "Continue match against AI" or "Return to Lobby".  I enjoy slaying my opponets and reducing them to 0, not simply receiving a message "X has conceded".

By the way, in paper Magic my friends usually have the decency not to concede, but to play matches out to the end.  Except with EXTREMELY excruciating decks or hard or soft locks, my real life opponents are polite enough not to quit, and I extend the same etiquette to them.  Online however, quitting occurs so often, and I suspect that this is due to the largely anonymous nature of online gaming, where etiquette is more easily bendable - or at very least different to what it is in real life).
MTGO has taken a much cheaper route to deal with providing you continued enjoyment. In MTGO you can find a new game almost rightaway. All you need to do to really solve this perceived problem of yours, is to come to grips with the fact that you can't force anyone to do what they don't want to do. When someone concedes, you win, you move on to the next game. When a game is no longer fun for you (and no-one can tell YOU what you think is fun), you concede and move on to the next game. Simple.

Now I sense that you are really talking about a certain kind of behavior that you don't like. Well, in real life, if you don't like the behavior of someone, you don't ask for a robot who is nicer to you, you simply look for nicer ppl to hang with. The sore loser brats soon find themselves without ppl who want to play with them. It's a self correcting thing. MTGO offers tools for that too. You can block ppl, you can make a buddy list of ppl who act the way you like them to, you can create a "non-quitters" clan, and so on.
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
There is a Pro Tour this weekend. Watch some games and then tell me how many games ended while one of the players reches zero life (meaning they go through all the combat steps etc.). It is close to zero percent. Does this mean that all the people at the pro tour are rude?

Conceding a game does not mean - you suck and I don't want to play no more. It means you won. Simple as that. Disconecting or stalling on the other hand is rude. I would consider my opponent to be rude if s/he wasted my time while we both know the game is over and s/he cannot do anything to stop me. I consider it rude if you put me through clicking a houndred times just to see me actually end the match (via storm or combo).

It's in the rules of magic itself. The game ends when a players life equels zero, an effect says either of you won (or lost) OR one player concedes the game.
KritijanH, I didn't say they were rude necessarily.  In fact if you read my messages on multiple occasions I said that I understand why people concede and that at least the etiquette online can be different to paper (not that it is wrong).  Nowhere did I state that I wanted people not to have the right to concede.  I simply said that I like the AI to take over when they do. 

This occurs in Duels, and it is one of the features that I liked about Duels of the Planeswalkers (just like you liked other features of Duels).  Not everything in Duels should be replicated in Magic Online, but that was a feature which I enjoyed.  Duels however gets very boring because it's the same decks, over and over and over again...
Seems to me that there is an easy solution for this.  WOTC should keep a quit % for each player, then when you set up a table have an option to only accept players joining with a quit % < X (user puts in X).  This way for people who do not care about quitting they can set up games without this parameter, and for those that do care they can exclude them. 

Even though my guess is coding this would be easy, WOTC probably does not see this as a problem worth spending even minimal time on.
Seems to me that there is an easy solution for this.  WOTC should keep a quit % for each player, then when you set up a table have an option to only accept players joining with a quit % < X (user puts in X).  This way for people who do not care about quitting they can set up games without this parameter, and for those that do care they can exclude them. 

Even though my guess is coding this would be easy, WOTC probably does not see this as a problem worth spending even minimal time on.



This suggestion gets put forward every time this discussion occurs. It is flawed because it does not distinguish between quitters, and those who say gg and politely concede when the opponent is a turn away from winning (but their last chance to draw a card doesn't help them).

Punishing players for politely conceding in this situation is absurd.
Seems to me that there is an easy solution for this.  WOTC should keep a quit % for each player, then when you set up a table have an option to only accept players joining with a quit % < X (user puts in X).  This way for people who do not care about quitting they can set up games without this parameter, and for those that do care they can exclude them. 

Even though my guess is coding this would be easy, WOTC probably does not see this as a problem worth spending even minimal time on.



This suggestion gets put forward every time this discussion occurs. It is flawed because it does not distinguish between quitters, and those who say gg and politely concede when the opponent is a turn away from winning (but their last chance to draw a card doesn't help them).

Punishing players for politely conceding in this situation is absurd.

They still quit - if you do not want the quit % to count against you then play it out (it is not a big time difference at that point anyway).
Seems to me that there is an easy solution for this.  WOTC should keep a quit % for each player, then when you set up a table have an option to only accept players joining with a quit % < X (user puts in X).  This way for people who do not care about quitting they can set up games without this parameter, and for those that do care they can exclude them. 

Even though my guess is coding this would be easy, WOTC probably does not see this as a problem worth spending even minimal time on.



This suggestion gets put forward every time this discussion occurs. It is flawed because it does not distinguish between quitters, and those who say gg and politely concede when the opponent is a turn away from winning (but their last chance to draw a card doesn't help them).

Punishing players for politely conceding in this situation is absurd.

They still quit - if you do not want the quit % to count against you then play it out (it is not a big time difference at that point anyway).




Wrong, WRONG, and absolutely WRONG.

When the opponent is one turn away from winning (they get it next attack), and your last card draw doesn't save you, it not only polite to say gg and concede, but it's also considered rude to play it out - it wastes the winner's time that could be spent going onto the next game.

When a player concedes in this situation, they are not quitting. They are doing the accepted and expected thing.
There are people who do not understand the time honored tradition of gracefully exiting a game through Resignation. I have unbelievingly encountered this in Chess tourneys where one player's opponent would not accept a resignation because he felt the game should be played out and then took 45 moves to win. Someone mentioned there was an obscure rule about 50 moves without a mate after the last piece from one side (aside from the king) has been taken. I am pretty sure that's a house rule but at the time it made me laugh.

In MTG most paper players will accept a resignation done with some modicum of grace. Few are kurmudgeon enough to insist on playing out a lost position.

People concede online for the following reasons:
a)They have to go because a child/parent/SO fell down the stairs and needs to be ambulanced to the hospital. (Is that a verb? Ambulanced? it should be imho.)
b)They don't like your shampoo.
c)They suddenly realize their deck is terrible. Through no one else's fault their embarassment leads them to quit.
d)They suddenly realize they hate your name/avatar/deck. They don't want to be in the same game with you and leave.
e)You disrupted their ability to play the game and it feels demoralizing. So they leave.
f) You said something they didn't like, so offended, they take off.
g)You said nothing after an effusive and warm greeting. And continue to say nothing while playing mr Stonefaced Prowannabe so they take off.
h)You said something confusing and now they realize no longer know how to play the game competantly and so move to Africa to join a commune.
i)they have figured out by your 5th turn what deck you are playing, know it will take you 100 turns to completely win after locking them out on turn 4. So they split.
j)They left something undone and their spouse has come in and bullied them off the pc.
k)They left something undone and their boss has come in and bullied them off the pc.
l) They realize that they have a date and must leave in 2minutes or risk the wrath of their SO.
m)They see it is a lost cause and leave.
n) They failed to mulligan properly or mulliganed to a low amount of cards and believe they have little chance after seeing what you are playing.

The list is virtually endless. The bottom line is only a few of those quitters are quitting to be obnoxious joy-killers. And imho so what if they are obnoxious joy-killers?? Haven't you had your fun anyway winning? No? Maybe examine how you play your games then. Find people who share your enjoyment of durdle magic and get together and durdle instead of going for the throat. (A great Johnny engine can be fascinating the first time around at least.)

The reason it is probably safer to just forgive and forget is that games come every split second on the server. Perhaps not in the format of your choice but in general. And if you are playing in a niche format (for the room you are in at least) you may need to form a cabal to get decent games anyway.

In my opinion, you are perfectly capable of putting together lists of people you want to play with and don't want to play with ever again. The client doing this for you just saves you a little time and lets you prejudge others based on a number that as we pointed out doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)

MTGO has taken a much cheaper route to deal with providing you continued enjoyment. In MTGO you can find a new game almost rightaway. All you need to do to really solve this perceived problem of yours, is to come to grips with the fact that you can't force anyone to do what they don't want to do. When someone concedes, you win, you move on to the next game. When a game is no longer fun for you (and no-one can tell YOU what you think is fun), you concede and move on to the next game. Simple.

Now I sense that you are really talking about a certain kind of behavior that you don't like. Well, in real life, if you don't like the behavior of someone, you don't ask for a robot who is nicer to you, you simply look for nicer ppl to hang with. The sore loser brats soon find themselves without ppl who want to play with them. It's a self correcting thing. MTGO offers tools for that too. You can block ppl, you can make a buddy list of ppl who act the way you like them to, you can create a "non-quitters" clan, and so on.



Nushae, you make some excellent points there.



The reason it is probably safer to just forgive and forget is that games come every split second on the server. Perhaps not in the format of your choice but in general. And if you are playing in a niche format (for the room you are in at least) you may need to form a cabal to get decent games anyway. 

In my opinion, you are perfectly capable of putting together lists of people you want to play with and don't want to play with ever again. The client doing this for you just saves you a little time and lets you prejudge others based on a number that as we pointed out doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.



Telir, you have managed to convince me, your comments make a lot of sense.
There are people who do not understand the time honored tradition of gracefully exiting a game through Resignation. I have unbelievingly encountered this in Chess tourneys where one player's opponent would not accept a resignation because he felt the game should be played out and then took 45 moves to win. Someone mentioned there was an obscure rule about 50 moves without a mate after the last piece from one side (aside from the king) has been taken. I am pretty sure that's a house rule but at the time it made me laugh.



First about resignation, as a former chess player, I know for a fact that you cannot refuse a resignation. The notion is absurd. The FIDE rules don't allow it at all. Once you resign the game is over. Period. That simply cannot have been an official tournament.

It is possible to refuse to resign, and keep playing on in hopes of getting a draw, but in many cases this is only a very slim chance and then it is considered extremely rude. Basically you're saying "I think my opponent, despite getting me into this position, is bad enough that he'll mess up at the end". But hey, the rules say nothing about implicit rudeness, and chess players are among the sorest losers around, so I bet it happens now and then.

Second, the "house rule" that you speak of is official although not in the form you describe. This is understandable because it does not occur often and few know it.
In chess these are the ways to obtain a draw:



  • agreement (obviously)

  • stalemate - if one player can't make any move yet is not check mated, it's a draw

  • repetition of moves - if at any point in time the same position on the board occurs for the third time, each time with the same player to move

  • insufficient mating material - certain sets of pieces can't possibly create a check mate (eg. king + knight versus king), if that occurs it's a draw

  • 50 moves rule - if for 50 moves, neither player moved a pawn or captured a piece (ie. 'made progress') the game is a draw.

Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
Second, the "house rule" that you speak of is official although not in the form you describe. This is understandable because it does not occur often and few know it.
In chess these are the ways to obtain a draw:



  • agreement (obviously)

  • stalemate - if one player can't make any move yet is not check mated, it's a draw

  • repetition of moves - if at any point in time the same position on the board occurs for the third time, each time with the same player to move

  • insufficient mating material - certain sets of pieces can't possibly create a check mate (eg. king + knight versus king), if that occurs it's a draw

  • 50 moves rule - if for 50 moves, neither player moved a pawn or captured a piece (ie. 'made progress') the game is a draw.



To follow up on Nush (I know the rule even though I don't play chess), the 50-turn rule is predicated on making an irreversable action: neither capturing a piece nor moving a pawn forward can be "undone" by a later move.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert
There are people who do not understand the time honored tradition of gracefully exiting a game through Resignation. I have unbelievingly encountered this in Chess tourneys where one player's opponent would not accept a resignation because he felt the game should be played out and then took 45 moves to win. Someone mentioned there was an obscure rule about 50 moves without a mate after the last piece from one side (aside from the king) has been taken. I am pretty sure that's a house rule but at the time it made me laugh.



First about resignation, as a former chess player, I know for a fact that you cannot refuse a resignation. The notion is absurd. The FIDE rules don't allow it at all. Once you resign the game is over. Period. That simply cannot have been an official tournament.

It is possible to refuse to resign, and keep playing on in hopes of getting a draw, but in many cases this is only a very slim chance and then it is considered extremely rude. Basically you're saying "I think my opponent, despite getting me into this position, is bad enough that he'll mess up at the end". But hey, the rules say nothing about implicit rudeness, and chess players are among the sorest losers around, so I bet it happens now and then.

Second, the "house rule" that you speak of is official although not in the form you describe. This is understandable because it does not occur often and few know it.
In chess these are the ways to obtain a draw:



  • agreement (obviously)

  • stalemate - if one player can't make any move yet is not check mated, it's a draw

  • repetition of moves - if at any point in time the same position on the board occurs for the third time, each time with the same player to move

  • insufficient mating material - certain sets of pieces can't possibly create a check mate (eg. king + knight versus king), if that occurs it's a draw

  • 50 moves rule - if for 50 moves, neither player moved a pawn or captured a piece (ie. 'made progress') the game is a draw.




Yeah Ive only only played in a few tourneys (A few for NYU and a couple at RPG conventions where they needed a minimum. Only one of those was USCF rated.) So I was unsure of the tourney rules about that and I guess the TO was too.

The 50 move rule I encountered extensively at the Village Chess shop (now defunct but was world famous in NYC as a tourist attraction.) and little elsewhere. In the parks I played Blitz mostly which tends to end quickly in terms of move count.

Certainly we have seen draw by repetition thousands of times. So that one is obvious, as is stalemate and agreement.

Thanks for the clarifications. You'd think after 42 years of playing I'd know ALL the rules. :d
 

Winter.Wolf (ugh at this new forum with the ridiculous double login)

Seems to me that there is an easy solution for this.  WOTC should keep a quit % for each player, then when you set up a table have an option to only accept players joining with a quit % < X (user puts in X).  This way for people who do not care about quitting they can set up games without this parameter, and for those that do care they can exclude them. 

Even though my guess is coding this would be easy, WOTC probably does not see this as a problem worth spending even minimal time on.



This suggestion gets put forward every time this discussion occurs. It is flawed because it does not distinguish between quitters, and those who say gg and politely concede when the opponent is a turn away from winning (but their last chance to draw a card doesn't help them).

Punishing players for politely conceding in this situation is absurd.

They still quit - if you do not want the quit % to count against you then play it out (it is not a big time difference at that point anyway).




Wrong, WRONG, and absolutely WRONG.

When the opponent is one turn away from winning (they get it next attack), and your last card draw doesn't save you, it not only polite to say gg and concede, but it's also considered rude to play it out - it wastes the winner's time that could be spent going onto the next game.

When a player concedes in this situation, they are not quitting. They are doing the accepted and expected thing.

You speak as if you know how everyone thinks.  I think you are wrong, in a casual game I like to play until the very end.  In either case we are talking the difference of seconds or minutes at the worst case.  Since you feel differently you can just not utilize the feature.
The best advice really is to try to not let quitters get to you. You'll become inured to it eventually, although there will be some that literally take your breath away. I personally tend to quit later than sooner; many situations that look unwinnable can change suddenly, and even where they don't you can learn new things that will help in future similar situations.
in paper Magic my friends usually have the decency not to concede, but to play matches out to the end.  Except with EXTREMELY excruciating decks or hard or soft locks, my real life opponents are polite enough not to quit, and I extend the same etiquette to them.  Online however, quitting occurs so often, and I suspect that this is due to the largely anonymous nature of online gaming, where etiquette is more easily bendable - or at very least different to what it is in real life).



In paper Magic you have a great deal of time and effort invested in the game, not seconds like you do online.  You've spent time to get to the venue, shuffle, track your life totals, track counters, manage tokens, choose a table, set up your game and trade binder, etc.  In that situation it is more respectful of your opponent's time and effort (not to mention you'll have to do it all again yourself for your next game) to play out the game even if you aren't having fun.

Online, another game is only seconds away.  No shuffling, no moving tables or any of your stuff.  Just a couple mouse clicks.  When you can play literally dozens of games in an hour you should feel free to play only games you enjoy.  Don't like discard/LD/mill/burn/deckOfTheWeek?  Conceed and find a game you do like.

People who don't like quitters are not taking full advantage of what online play has to offer.

This space intentionally left blank.

In paper Magic you have a great deal of time and effort invested in the game, not seconds like you do online.



I would like to point out for the sake of factuality, that it takes a lot of time to even START a 2hg classic game. You would not be dramatizing things if you claimed that online you do invest a lot of time in 2hg classic games. Can't speak for other multiplayer formats of course.

Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
In general these discussions don't really lead anywhere as long as there are any participants still under the misconception that you can impose any behavior on other players. some like to play to the end and that is their good right. Others like to waste as little time as possible once the game has been decided (and believe me, some ppl are experienced enough to KNOW this). Neither is wrong, neither is right.

It is little-endian versus big-endian, and the sooner you realize, the better.
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
Others like to waste as little time as possible once the game has been decided (and believe me, some ppl are experienced enough to KNOW this)

Right, I know the game is about to end when I cast land destruction in a pauper prismatic singleton game

I'm surprised this is even an issue.  If you're playing with your buddy at the dinner table and he's mulliganned down to 4 with no lands, you're going to just scrap the match and redraw.  It's pointless to force that person through an uphill battle they're most likely not going to win.  In a real tournament, dems da breaks, but with casual play, there's no reason to force that on someone.

That being said, the same should apply to online play.  If your opponent mulligans down to 5 or 4 cards, I pretty much assume a concession.  It would be a little disappointing to me to steamroll over a player who never had a chance to begin with.  You can always just play the same match again.

It doesn't matter when a player decides to concede, or for whatever reason.  Like several other players said:  your opponent has decided that the game is no longer fun for them, and that they would rather play a different game.  Let them. 

Getting butthurt because you didn't get to combo off is childish.
Sign In to post comments